Angry Gami added a comment - 2019-11-26 10:45 I wrote a test for workflow-job project that shows the case and fix for it: pom.xml diff --git a/pom.xml b/pom.xml index b9b8e64..f255e37 100644 --- a/pom.xml +++ b/pom.xml @@ -93,13 +93,13 @@ <!-- Satisfy upper bound dependencies --> <groupId>org.jenkins-ci.plugins</groupId> <artifactId>script-security</artifactId> - <version>1.62</version> + <version>1.63</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>org.jenkins-ci.plugins.workflow</groupId> <artifactId>workflow-cps</artifactId> - <version>2.74</version> + <version>2.76</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> <dependency> WorkflowJobTest.java diff --git a/src/test/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/job/WorkflowJobTest.java b/src/test/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/job/WorkflowJobTest.java index 53b27de..b32130f 100644 --- a/src/test/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/job/WorkflowJobTest.java +++ b/src/test/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/workflow/job/WorkflowJobTest.java @@ -69,6 +69,15 @@ public class WorkflowJobTest { j.assertLogContains( "second version" , b2); } + @Issue( "JENKINS-38669" ) + @Test public void nonEmptySCMListForGitSCMJobBeforeBuild() throws Exception { + WorkflowJob p = j.jenkins.createProject(WorkflowJob.class, "p" ); + CpsScmFlowDefinition def = new CpsScmFlowDefinition( new GitSCM( "I don't care" ), "Jenkinsfile" ); + assertEquals( "Expecting one SCM for definition" , 1, def.getSCMs().size()); + p.setDefinition(def); + assertEquals( "Expecting one SCM" , 1, p.getSCMs().size()); + } + @Test public void addAction() throws Exception { WorkflowJob p = j.jenkins.createProject(WorkflowJob.class, "p" ); Though I'm not sure this is good for master branch, I was working from repo tag 'workflow-job-2.36'.

Mark Waite added a comment - 2019-12-01 15:08 Yes, please submit a pull request with your proposal. The " how to use incrementals " blog post from Jesse Glick and the Jenkins incrementals tools README are two good references that should allow you to more easily develop changes across multiple plugins. I'm not expert enough in the details of the pipeline flow definition to comment on the viability of the change you're proposing. The pipeline maintainers will be much better suited to assess the impact of the proposed change than I am. They are most likely to prefer a pull request as the way to review the idea.

Devin Nusbaum added a comment - 2019-12-02 15:52 angrygami Thanks for looking into this. Note that WorkflowJob.getSCMs includes SCMs for things like shared libraries or uses of the checkout step from inside of the Pipeline, so IIUC changes to any of those SCMs will trigger a build after the first successful build has completed (and for one extra build even if the Pipeline was changed to no longer use those SCMs). The proposed API would only work for the SCM used for the Jenkinsfile, and only for CpsScmFlowDefinition , which is still better than today, but I think we'd want to make sure to be very clear about what would and would not work in the changelog and any documentation. CC bitwiseman in case he has any thoughts.

Angry Gami added a comment - 2019-12-02 16:26 The proposed API would only work for the SCM used for the Jenkinsfile, and only for CpsScmFlowDefinition This was my intention. I understand that some FlowDefintion subclasses are not using scm at all. I was annoyed that one that definitely do don't work as expected. I've seen your comment on github and will make other PRs as soon as I have time Thanks.    

Angry Gami added a comment - 2019-12-04 09:57 - edited Ok, all PRs are now done. Though https://github.com/jenkinsci/workflow-job-plugin/pull/147 fails and I don't understand why. Please 0u812 could you take a look?